http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=...warticle&id=291
I just read this article about a bloodthirsty Confederate guerilla.
Full Version: Would this historical guerilla be a viable SR?
| QUOTE |
Bloody Bill was one of William Clarke Quantrill’s Raiders in the American Civil War. Born in Missouri he was a normal kid for the day, going to school, helping to support the family, being both a brother and a father to his sisters while their true father was out in California panning for gold. Then the War got going, Pro-Unionists killed his father. So Bill became a Confederate guerrilla under Quantrill. Union soldiers were responsible for the death of his sister “Josephine� and his other sister was maimed for life. Bill became a killing machine. He wore a silk rope where he would tie a knot for every Yankee he killed. He also wore scalps around his neck and on his horse bridle. His weapon of choice was the Colt Navy revolver; he wouldn’t get caught with less than 4 on him. He was a walking arsenal. He would become so enraged in battle that he would cry and froth at the mouth! His dead sister’s name “Josephine� was his battle cry, as well as “No Quarter!� |
| QUOTE |
As the train approached the burning depot, Peters disserted his man and tried to escape by jumping from the train and rolling under a platform. Bloody Bill saw him do this and ordered his men to "Pull that bastard out of there!" Peters tried to make a run for it and Bill shot him in the back six times. He had the remaining 26 soldiers lined up. “With the feeling that they were certainly going to be slaughtered, most dropped to their knees sobbing and begging for mercy – a sight that Anderson reveled in. Armed with four Navy Colt pistols in his waistband, a sabre, a hatchet, four rifles and a bag of pistols on his horse, Anderson proceeded to psychologically terrorize his victims by strutting up and down in front of them. Ignoring their pleas for their lives to be spared Anderson stopped, lighted a cigar and then, in a somewhat subdued manner, asked –"Boys, do you have a Sergeant in your ranks?" Met with no response, Anderson repeatedly asked the same question with the inference that co–operation would mean that their lives would be spared. Eventually, Thomas M. Goodman took a pace forward and announced his rank. "Fine, we'll use you to exchange for one of my men that them damned Yankees have caught". The fearsome lunatic Anderson then withdrew two of his pistols and walked down the line of troopers firing until the chambers of both guns were empty then, he repeated this act twice more until he had murdered all the Union men in cold blood single–handed. .� |
So, this guy historically and in reality, was successfully acting in a way which you would expect someone playing a homicidal Fallout game to act, or like Bob from Knights of the Dinner Table to play one of his characters.
It's interesting to me because usually such characters are looked down upon by RPGers as being unrealistic, uninteresting, a stupid concept, and so forth. But how stupid or immature can a character concept like that be if it has a legitimate basis in historical reality?
In Shadowrun, especially, we like to beat our chests and talk about "professionalism." I remember how the first SR GM I had (the killer GM) one got pissed off at my in-character posturing during negotiations with the Johnson and started complaining to me about how my character was acting unprofessional and how nobody would want to hire a loose cannon. There's a lot of discussion on these boards where at least some people claim that you're better off if you use gel rounds instead of slaughtering everyone. I feel like there's something of an unspoken understanding that player characters generally shouldn't line up a column of surrendering security guards and execute them while smoking a cigar using four vintage navy revolvers. If somebody described a character who did that I'll bet everyone would cry munchkin or 12-year-old.
Thing is, though, seeing as this kind of berzerker could be an actual successful guerilla historically, could it be possible that this kind of guy could also be a successful shadowrunner? Would a combination of total ruthlessness and bloodthirstyness necessarily doom a runner to failure?
If somebody made a SR version of "Bloody Bill" Anderson and played him in your game how would you as the GM react to such a character?
The history would work well for a shadowrunner. Hell, he would obviously be a from the Confederated American States, and his family was attacked in the Aztlan Conflicts. He could have also came up after the expansion of Tir Tairngire into CalFree, and grew up with with conflict in the buffer zone.
As a Shadowrunner, he could certainly work out in game statistics, either as a ruthless marksman adept or as a honor code removed sort of Sammie. He'd probably be ridiculously skilled with pistols (i'm thinking Warhawks), tough as nails and a fair few points into intimidation/interrogation.
The place where it comes down to for me is how "professional" he'd act in a team. And by professional I don't mean whether he loads his warhawks with gel rounds. If he gets into big gunfights when there's a more expedient option, or there's more to lose getting into a big fight, or if the other characters are not combat specced and he draws them into unnecessary conflicts, rather than using their strengths as well.
Basically, it's all how the player decides to play him. A good shadowrunner should be at least slightly versatile, work for the needs of the group (and GM). Also, while I understand the gel rounds argument is silly, both ruthlesness and restraint are useful for a shadowrunner.
As a Shadowrunner, he could certainly work out in game statistics, either as a ruthless marksman adept or as a honor code removed sort of Sammie. He'd probably be ridiculously skilled with pistols (i'm thinking Warhawks), tough as nails and a fair few points into intimidation/interrogation.
The place where it comes down to for me is how "professional" he'd act in a team. And by professional I don't mean whether he loads his warhawks with gel rounds. If he gets into big gunfights when there's a more expedient option, or there's more to lose getting into a big fight, or if the other characters are not combat specced and he draws them into unnecessary conflicts, rather than using their strengths as well.
Basically, it's all how the player decides to play him. A good shadowrunner should be at least slightly versatile, work for the needs of the group (and GM). Also, while I understand the gel rounds argument is silly, both ruthlesness and restraint are useful for a shadowrunner.
He got shot twice in the head in an ambush set up by Union Colonel named Samuel P. Cox, who had orders to kill him.
And that is the problem with such a character. It isn't that he was brutal it is that he attracted attention and was quite public about his acts. He even wrote to a newspaper.
It was inevitable that they would send someone after him.
A Shadowrunner doesn't have to worry about this nearly as much. Sending people after him once the run is finished would be pointless and simply cost more money, in most cases. But, if the public outcry is loud enough it will be done. Thus, such a Shadowrunner shouldn't be blatant and shouldn't brag about his exploits to news reporters.
And that is the problem with such a character. It isn't that he was brutal it is that he attracted attention and was quite public about his acts. He even wrote to a newspaper.
It was inevitable that they would send someone after him.
A Shadowrunner doesn't have to worry about this nearly as much. Sending people after him once the run is finished would be pointless and simply cost more money, in most cases. But, if the public outcry is loud enough it will be done. Thus, such a Shadowrunner shouldn't be blatant and shouldn't brag about his exploits to news reporters.
I think the term professionalism gets thrown around a lot because Shadowrunning is a business. Perhaps even a profession, and it needs a level of decorum to continue.
Now frankly I miss the old days of the rocker archtype, skintight leather pants and giant pink mohawks, but the 1990s happened and that kinda cleaned it up a bit, made the move from power chords and hair spray to power suits and professional 'resource adjusters'.
Now back to the question at hand. Yes, infact I'm SURE he would make a good shadowrunner, though somewhere on his 'corp. file' it would make a bigass note that he would be a total nutter.
Now frankly I miss the old days of the rocker archtype, skintight leather pants and giant pink mohawks, but the 1990s happened and that kinda cleaned it up a bit, made the move from power chords and hair spray to power suits and professional 'resource adjusters'.
Now back to the question at hand. Yes, infact I'm SURE he would make a good shadowrunner, though somewhere on his 'corp. file' it would make a bigass note that he would be a total nutter.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jan 15 2007, 05:57 PM) | ||
| http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=...warticle&id=291 I just read this article about a bloodthirsty Confederate guerilla.
|
I guess Machiavelli was wrong. Then again, the exception hardly proves the rule.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| It's interesting to me because usually such characters are looked down upon by RPGers as being unrealistic, uninteresting, a stupid concept, and so forth. But how stupid or immature can a character concept like that be if it has a legitimate basis in historical reality? |
Because shadowrunners are professional criminals hired, ostensibly, for their discretion. They are not fighting a fucking war.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| A Shadowrunner doesn't have to worry about this nearly as much. Sending people after him once the run is finished would be pointless and simply cost more money, in most cases. But, if the public outcry is loud enough it will be done. Thus, such a Shadowrunner shouldn't be blatant and shouldn't brag about his exploits to news reporters. |
One name: Kane.
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| The history would work well for a shadowrunner. |
Agreed.
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| As a Shadowrunner, he could certainly work out in game statistics, either as a ruthless marksman adept or as a honor code removed sort of Sammie. He'd probably be ridiculously skilled with pistols (i'm thinking Warhawks), tough as nails and a fair few points into intimidation/interrogation. |
Shooting unarmed men who are pleading for their lives doesn't require a particularly high gun skill.
Overall, I think Bill Anderson works better as a model for a gang leader, which is what he was.
As a runner he has major problems. Mr. Johnson typically doesn't like runners with personal agendas. His writing to the newspapers is not good for long term survival. And it's hard to bring the other hundred guys along on the run without drawing a bit too much attention.
Plus, if someone wanted to play a loser like that, I would still think "munchkin or twelve-year old, at least mentally." So there was an actual raving nutcase in history. Big deal. Jeffrey Dahmer was a "historical figure", and I would look down on anyone wanting to play him.
Yeah, I think "professionalism" is over-emphasized, and that it should only be the rule for the upper echelon of established runners, but raving nutters tend to be pursued with more than usual vindictiveness from their targets, if their teammates don't cack the looney first.
Yeah, I think "professionalism" is over-emphasized, and that it should only be the rule for the upper echelon of established runners, but raving nutters tend to be pursued with more than usual vindictiveness from their targets, if their teammates don't cack the looney first.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| Jeffrey Dahmer was a "historical figure", and I would look down on anyone wanting to play him. |
Really? I mean, it's a sufficiently complex character that it's probably not appropriate for a team-based game just because of the amount of time it'd take, but there's a lot of interesting material in someone who committed their first murder because they "[…] didn't want him to leave".
~J
So shall we take it literally and would this runner be fightin' fo' his god-given RIGHT to have trogs pickin' de cotton?
Add some tension. Make it a Trog fighting for his right to pick de cotton and for his right to make all other Trogs help him pick it.
(Civil war not about slavery, so on and soforth.)
~J
(Civil war not about slavery, so on and soforth.)
~J
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| So shall we take it literally and would this runner be fightin' fo' his god-given RIGHT to have trogs pickin' de cotton? |
The Civil War was over a lot more than just slavery. In fact, quite a large number of people on either side of the conflict couldn't care less about that issue.
The main problem I see with that character type is that his actions were tolerated because it was wartime. If he was hanging out on the Yucatan Penninsula then I wouldn't have a problem with him in my games. However, if it was a normal city based campaign he would get ritually tracked or hunted down because brutally murdering (which is what he did) defenseless security guards would not endear him to many people. Killing a lot of security guards and corp personnel makes it very hard to not have the corps track you down and crucify you for your crimes.
Kane is around simply because he's a Prime Runner and probably a developer's character or idea. Notice how most people on Jackpoint and Shadowland try not to associate themselves with him because of his behavior. Yeah, he kills people and you're character may be based off a historical person but it still doesn't make it a good concept.
I would applaud you for the historical aspect and such but I would still find you immature and borderline psycho if you decided to bring a character based off of Bloody Billy to my table. Just my personal opinion though.
Kane is around simply because he's a Prime Runner and probably a developer's character or idea. Notice how most people on Jackpoint and Shadowland try not to associate themselves with him because of his behavior. Yeah, he kills people and you're character may be based off a historical person but it still doesn't make it a good concept.
I would applaud you for the historical aspect and such but I would still find you immature and borderline psycho if you decided to bring a character based off of Bloody Billy to my table. Just my personal opinion though.
A character like this would fit in well in the Yucatan Wars, the Phillipines or any of the other war zones mentioned in Fields of Fire and its sequel. There are some brutal wars going on and there would be sure to be things that would push a man over the edge into madness. Being a warzone rather than just the standard urban jungle, they'd have much more opportunity to do things like that and essentially get away with it.
There were brutal people on both sides of the Civil War and especially in the preceding nastiness in West over free and slave states.
During the 1920's Prohibition Era, there were plenty of ruthless gunmen. Al Capone, Hiemi Weiss and all the others would make fine urban examples too, for gang bosses.
There were brutal people on both sides of the Civil War and especially in the preceding nastiness in West over free and slave states.
During the 1920's Prohibition Era, there were plenty of ruthless gunmen. Al Capone, Hiemi Weiss and all the others would make fine urban examples too, for gang bosses.
personally i think it would be a neat idea. so what if you want to make a character like that at least you put more thought into it than say someone just playing it for the hell of it. and any GM can find ways to adapt a game around that concept. sure most shadowrunners arent fighting "wars" but say you have a vendetta towards a faction/corp/etc. its not too hard to find a johnson with wetwork missions against that.
also another thing to look at is the whole writing to the newspaper thing you could easily put that in with a flaw and even get the enemy flaw for having written to the newspaper and such.
most importantly though is no matter what you play or how you play it as long as you enjoy it and the gm can work with it without popping a vein then by all means go for it. a good gm can work with damn near anything.
also another thing to look at is the whole writing to the newspaper thing you could easily put that in with a flaw and even get the enemy flaw for having written to the newspaper and such.
most importantly though is no matter what you play or how you play it as long as you enjoy it and the gm can work with it without popping a vein then by all means go for it. a good gm can work with damn near anything.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| but there's a lot of interesting material in someone who committed their first murder because they "[…] didn't want him to leave". |
Really? Domestic abusers are really not quite that complex or interesting. You're going to have to get a lot more specific than that.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Add some tension. Make it a Trog fighting for his right to pick de cotton and for his right to make all other Trogs help him pick it. |
bwaahahaha
| QUOTE (WhiskeyMac) |
| Kane is around simply because he's a Prime Runner and probably a developer's character or idea. Notice how most people on Jackpoint and Shadowland try not to associate themselves with him because of his behavior. Yeah, he kills people and you're character may be based off a historical person but it still doesn't make it a good concept. |
Kane is around because Chris and Jennifer made him cool in spite of the piss-poor editing to Cyberpirates. But then again, I don't think that too much thought was given to a runner who went out of his way to criticize pirates in that book only to be listed as one in the core shadowtalker list.
| QUOTE (Kasheu) |
| also another thing to look at is the whole writing to the newspaper thing you could easily put that in with a flaw and even get the enemy flaw for having written to the newspaper and such. |
Christ. If you're going to do that, at least have the decency to rip off Pancho Villa.
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| Really? Domestic abusers are really not quite that complex or interesting. You're going to have to get a lot more specific than that. |
There's more to Mr. Dahmer, of course, but I'd claim you're wrong even here. There's generally a lot going into how people act, even if it's not obvious.
~J
| QUOTE (Ed Simons) |
| Overall, I think Bill Anderson works better as a model for a gang leader, which is what he was. |
Referring to Bill Anderson as a gang leader is like referring to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. It is true in the broadest sense, but terribly inaccurate.
Both were resistance leaders and are best considered to be such.
Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad.
I'm not sure I'd agree with playing a char as Bloody Bill to be 'immature'. I mean what is it that supposedly makes such a person 'immature'? The fact that he doesnt sit down and civiliy talk things out?
Because, you know, dispite what some people say. Violence has solved a great many more issues in life than simple negociation. Look at divorce cases for example. They drag on for years, they can lead to the financial ruin of an entire family. And there are cases where eventually some one snaps and goes on a murder/suicide binge.
Where as if one partner had simply shot the other and been able to steal all their posessions along with any protesters it would have settled matters. Not at all in an 'acceptable' or 'civil' manner. But it damn well would have settled it. And in no more than an hour if no one protested, to perhaps.. say 2 years if there was vengance sought against the person for their actions.
I knew one divorce case a friend of my parents was in for over 10 years. And it was a pretty typical one too. Granted it didnt result in anyone's death, but you can hardly have called the proceedings even remotely 'mature'. Especially when you had people claiming to be 'emotionally attached' to crap like the kitchen stove, pots and pans and so forth.
If your speaking about it being immature from the point of view of vindictiveness? Well... that might well be true. But that has no real relation to the maturity level of a player. Some times you just want to play something different. And a modern day barbarian is certainly that. It also doenst mean they didnt actually at one point or another consider the implications of their actions.
Afterall the line of thought might well have gone a little something like this. (And even happen in a few seconds)
Ok so I need money, and really bad too.
I need food, I need enough cash for rent for about a month.
I've got no SIN so I can just get a decent job, and I wouldnt know how to do a 'real' job if it bit me on the ass anyway.
Hrmm. I do have a gun, and I know how to use it however.
And here we got Mr. Rich, flouting his certified credsticks... hmmm doesnt look like he's got a gun, or guards either...
BB: Excuse me sir?
Mr.Rich: Ew... get away from me!
BB: Dont suppose you could spare some cred?
Mr.Rich: Egads! Yet another bum from the filth of the street! Absolutely not! Get a job!
BB: Ah well, I tried. *Pulls out a gun*
Mr.Rich: Oh dear.
BB: Gimmie your money or else!
Mr.Rich: Surely we can talk about this! *tries to stall for time as he hits a panic button*
BB: I think not! *BLAM*
BB loots the corpse of Mr.Rich and runs before the Star can show up.
Now, in a scenario like that, maybe eh could have negociated a few yen out of the guy. But by murdering him in cold blood BB gets not only all the cash in cert cred Mr.Rich was carrying on him, but everything else he cared to steal while he was at it too.
He might well have to hide from the cops for a while, and might wind up with some one going after him in vengance. But in the end, especially in a world like SR he's actually quite likely to just be more or less forgotten about in time. So now, instead of having wandered aimlessly begging for jobs/money etc for days, weeks or even months. He instead simply murdered one guy, and wound up with enough money to hold him over for a month or two, possibly more. Meaning he can now actually surive, and afford to shower, shave and mabye get some decent clothes and land a decent job.
While I'd totally agree it's a psychopathic way of going about it. I'd hardly call such a line of thought 'immature'. The situation, and actions were to an extent calculated, and the risk was simply taken. In this istance the risk paid off in a big way. It all depends on the when and where.
If you murder a bunch of sec guards in a secure facility. But there's no recordings and no real evidence to catch you. And we'll assume for now that theres say.. sound proofing so the gunshots arnt heard and such. It's hardly immature to kill them all. Afterall a living guard can point you out down the road. A dead man tells no tales however. If your good enough at hiding, you could probably act like that your whole life, and never really feel any reprocussions what so ever. Your certainly more likely to have people hunting you and out for your blood. And while your also alot more likely to wind up in jail or dead than the guy hitting hte guards with gels, your also in a way, alot less likely to get killed by those same sec guards.
Afterall while in some facilities the guards themselves load gels. How many of them in your games are shooting bakc at you with live rounds? Better them than me I allway say. If the GM is actually having NPCs shooting gels at me on a regular basis i might well return the favour. But I"m not going to let that stop me if I'm feeling abit of a pinch. Afterall other than forcing knockdown tests gels.. just dont cut it against body armor like EX-EX or APDS.
Because, you know, dispite what some people say. Violence has solved a great many more issues in life than simple negociation. Look at divorce cases for example. They drag on for years, they can lead to the financial ruin of an entire family. And there are cases where eventually some one snaps and goes on a murder/suicide binge.
Where as if one partner had simply shot the other and been able to steal all their posessions along with any protesters it would have settled matters. Not at all in an 'acceptable' or 'civil' manner. But it damn well would have settled it. And in no more than an hour if no one protested, to perhaps.. say 2 years if there was vengance sought against the person for their actions.
I knew one divorce case a friend of my parents was in for over 10 years. And it was a pretty typical one too. Granted it didnt result in anyone's death, but you can hardly have called the proceedings even remotely 'mature'. Especially when you had people claiming to be 'emotionally attached' to crap like the kitchen stove, pots and pans and so forth.
If your speaking about it being immature from the point of view of vindictiveness? Well... that might well be true. But that has no real relation to the maturity level of a player. Some times you just want to play something different. And a modern day barbarian is certainly that. It also doenst mean they didnt actually at one point or another consider the implications of their actions.
Afterall the line of thought might well have gone a little something like this. (And even happen in a few seconds)
Ok so I need money, and really bad too.
I need food, I need enough cash for rent for about a month.
I've got no SIN so I can just get a decent job, and I wouldnt know how to do a 'real' job if it bit me on the ass anyway.
Hrmm. I do have a gun, and I know how to use it however.
And here we got Mr. Rich, flouting his certified credsticks... hmmm doesnt look like he's got a gun, or guards either...
BB: Excuse me sir?
Mr.Rich: Ew... get away from me!
BB: Dont suppose you could spare some cred?
Mr.Rich: Egads! Yet another bum from the filth of the street! Absolutely not! Get a job!
BB: Ah well, I tried. *Pulls out a gun*
Mr.Rich: Oh dear.
BB: Gimmie your money or else!
Mr.Rich: Surely we can talk about this! *tries to stall for time as he hits a panic button*
BB: I think not! *BLAM*
BB loots the corpse of Mr.Rich and runs before the Star can show up.
Now, in a scenario like that, maybe eh could have negociated a few yen out of the guy. But by murdering him in cold blood BB gets not only all the cash in cert cred Mr.Rich was carrying on him, but everything else he cared to steal while he was at it too.
He might well have to hide from the cops for a while, and might wind up with some one going after him in vengance. But in the end, especially in a world like SR he's actually quite likely to just be more or less forgotten about in time. So now, instead of having wandered aimlessly begging for jobs/money etc for days, weeks or even months. He instead simply murdered one guy, and wound up with enough money to hold him over for a month or two, possibly more. Meaning he can now actually surive, and afford to shower, shave and mabye get some decent clothes and land a decent job.
While I'd totally agree it's a psychopathic way of going about it. I'd hardly call such a line of thought 'immature'. The situation, and actions were to an extent calculated, and the risk was simply taken. In this istance the risk paid off in a big way. It all depends on the when and where.
If you murder a bunch of sec guards in a secure facility. But there's no recordings and no real evidence to catch you. And we'll assume for now that theres say.. sound proofing so the gunshots arnt heard and such. It's hardly immature to kill them all. Afterall a living guard can point you out down the road. A dead man tells no tales however. If your good enough at hiding, you could probably act like that your whole life, and never really feel any reprocussions what so ever. Your certainly more likely to have people hunting you and out for your blood. And while your also alot more likely to wind up in jail or dead than the guy hitting hte guards with gels, your also in a way, alot less likely to get killed by those same sec guards.
Afterall while in some facilities the guards themselves load gels. How many of them in your games are shooting bakc at you with live rounds? Better them than me I allway say. If the GM is actually having NPCs shooting gels at me on a regular basis i might well return the favour. But I"m not going to let that stop me if I'm feeling abit of a pinch. Afterall other than forcing knockdown tests gels.. just dont cut it against body armor like EX-EX or APDS.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
The Civil War was over a lot more than just slavery. In fact, quite a large number of people on either side of the conflict couldn't care less about that issue. |
I'll take your word for it. All I know about the Civil war is pretty limited, as there is a MUCH bigger focus of our own history of racial oppression in Australia, and we only get face value information in some highschool history classes, and some cringeworthy civil war movies.
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Jan 16 2007, 08:30 PM) |
| ... there is a MUCH bigger focus of our own history of racial oppression in Australia ... |
Too much!
I live in Australia too, by the way.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Too much! I live in Australia too, by the way. |
Yeah but that can be said of any country.
The US is very biased towards it's own history. Particulairly Civil War. And there's the ever goign debate over who won the war of 1812. Never mind that the US permanently lost territory and never got it back. And far as I know didnt actually gain anything from that one it' soften chalked up as a 'win' by alot of Americans.
On the Canadian side of the border we sorta cover some US history. But most of the focus is on Canadian culture and development.
Go to Germany? Same sorta deal there. Lot of stuff on old German history, some focus on developments elsewhere in Europe.... and just about damn near nothing on other countries.
Norway? Same deal again. Mostly their own country from what I've seen.
Cuba? Probably the same thing. Though I was only 6 going on 7 at the time. So I cant really say. God knows I hardly remember that trip. And most of what I remember of it is the beaches, sandcrabs. And that god damn sea urchin that stabbed me in the foot and hurt like all hell. Yay for poisoned quills.
Go to Africa I'm sure you'll see the same thing. I'd have to ask my parents about that one. But then again... alot of the places they worked in in the 70's still was... well.. I suppose saying it was still half way in the middle ages would sum it up rather well depending on where you are specifically. (Afterall it goes from quite Modern to.. well. Litterally mud and grass huts and hunting spears to this day)
Mmm speaking of Africa that totally reminds me. For you guys I should ask a friend of mine for the link to this one thread in the Operation Flashpoint forums. Basically it's making fun of some of these guys. All sorts of crazy pictures. Like this one guy running full tilt down a street firing an AK-47. The thing is.. he's not just firing it. He's doing so while holding it overhead and sideways.
And there's another picture of this guy running across the street firing an MG full out while another guy is running along side him feeding the belt. Their doing the craziest crap I've ever seen. And none of it makes any sense when it comes to accuracy. Really makes you wonder how those particular people ever manage to kill ANYONE. (Course maybe.. they never did dispite their best efforts)
The guy had a vendetta against a particular group, Unionists. Fair enough. If I had a character who said orks killed his parents and now he is extremely, extremely biased against orks, I'd say that's quite fine. He can shoot orks execution style and eat their babies on the basis that orks hurt him. As long as he has a character BEYOND that particular flaw, he'd still be roleplaying.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are a challenge to play. To force your perspective to such radical extremes can be fulfilling. By this I do not mean "bang your dead cos am so bad."
Rather, understanding and playing an abnormal human/metahuman personality through its many layers.
(AT this point may I caution against doing this lightly! Doing this right means looking into the darkest part of the human mind. It can be positive but doing so without everyone consenting to it can just be harsh and not much fun.)
Such people are often not 'professional' for example Mr. Blonde from reservoir Dogs is not professional but still interesting as a character.
Most runners are not going to be shy of violence to some degree but complete nut jobs are going to cause trouble. Most sane runners would worry about running with hannibal lecter because insanity is scary.
Though it may be a realistic character the other PC's might just walk away or even murder them for the good of humanity due to their behaviour.
At the end of the day the style of game the character is in determines its validity.
Rather, understanding and playing an abnormal human/metahuman personality through its many layers.
(AT this point may I caution against doing this lightly! Doing this right means looking into the darkest part of the human mind. It can be positive but doing so without everyone consenting to it can just be harsh and not much fun.)
Such people are often not 'professional' for example Mr. Blonde from reservoir Dogs is not professional but still interesting as a character.
Most runners are not going to be shy of violence to some degree but complete nut jobs are going to cause trouble. Most sane runners would worry about running with hannibal lecter because insanity is scary.
Though it may be a realistic character the other PC's might just walk away or even murder them for the good of humanity due to their behaviour.
At the end of the day the style of game the character is in determines its validity.
I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Blonde's "unprofessionalism". He was the only one who gave a thought to the future consequences of his actions, and not just their short-term results.
~J
~J
Ok find someone you deem unprofessional and substitute, apply a suitable level of insanity.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad. |
the thing is, a lot of the people who play a Bloody Bill character won't be doing it because it's an interesting character with a complex set of psychological balances that they want to explore. they'll be playing it because they're using SR as a substitute for Doom. they just want to run around killing whoever they want, not examine the personality that would do those things. it's not what they're playing, it why--and therefore how--they're playing it.
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| And there's another picture of this guy running across the street firing an MG full out while another guy is running along side him feeding the belt. Their doing the craziest crap I've ever seen. And none of it makes any sense when it comes to accuracy. Really makes you wonder how those particular people ever manage to kill ANYONE. (Course maybe.. they never did dispite their best efforts) |
African ehrm, I'll just call them militia instead of crazed sociopaths, aren't exactly renown for their accurate shooting capability. They like to chop their victims to pieces to kill them.
The description of this historical guerilla isn't the worst one I've read. On Topic, in a gang or merc campaign he might be very viable (like someone mentioned before
).
They are almost certainly not sociopaths, considering how many there are.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 16 2007, 02:33 PM) | ||
the thing is, a lot of the people who play a Bloody Bill character won't be doing it because it's an interesting character with a complex set of psychological balances that they want to explore. they'll be playing it because they're using SR as a substitute for Doom. they just want to run around killing whoever they want, not examine the personality that would do those things. it's not what they're playing, it why--and therefore how--they're playing it. |
QFT.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad. |
Proving once again that just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
There's more to Mr. Dahmer, of course, but I'd claim you're wrong even here. There's generally a lot going into how people act, even if it's not obvious. |
I'm... No. There isn't. There are multiple ways in how they became abusers, but the abuse is far from complex. That's what made it so sickening to be around them.
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| Because, you know, dispite what some people say. Violence has solved a great many more issues in life than simple negociation. Look at divorce cases for example. They drag on for years, they can lead to the financial ruin of an entire family. And there are cases where eventually some one snaps and goes on a murder/suicide binge. Where as if one partner had simply shot the other and been able to steal all their posessions along with any protesters it would have settled matters. |
I have a new winner for the "Most idiotic/factually incorrect thing I've ever read on Dumpshock." I swear to fucking God.
Well, James, I'm glad that you're here to instruct us in REAL role-playing. Why don't you give us a list of acceptable character types for future reference?
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| I'm... No. There isn't. There are multiple ways in how they became abusers |
"It's not, but it is". I think either you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I'm expressing myself badly.
~J
| QUOTE (SL James @ Jan 16 2007, 08:59 PM) | ||
I have a new winner for the "Most idiotic/factually incorrect thing I've ever read on Dumpshock." I swear to fucking God. |
While poorly worded, it is quite accurate.
While the tit for tat strategy, cooperation enforced by mutual retaliation, is optimal in most cases and forgiveness becomes optimal in cases of retaliation spiral, in which retaliation continues to escalate despite the best intentions of all parties, when faced with someone who acts in a consistently selfish manner despite offers to cooperate the only choice is to endure the abuse at its current levels or initiate an unending retaliation spiral unless one can simply remove the other from play altogether. Assuming that one can do so without inviting even greater retaliation, deadly violence is the best way to deal with an unrepentant enemy.
In practice, though, it's usually the unrepentant one who is the first to initiate violence. And then write a book entitled "How I Would Have Done It".
The other party is always the unrepentant one.
~J
~J
Quite, which is why retaliation spirals start in the first place. However, we must assume that we ourselves are rational actors and thus must always act in the most rational way.
Thus, the proper sequence is
You:Cooperate
Other: Betray
You: Retaliate
Other: Retaliate
You: Forgive
Other:Reject
You:Destroy
So long as the other continues to cooperate, everything is fine. If the other is cowed by the initial retaliation and becomes cooperative, everything is fine. If the other accepts the forgiveness and cooperates, everything is fine. The issue only comes up if the other chooses to reject attempts at reconciliation.
This, of course, assumes a situation in which each party can destroy the other but the other party chooses not to destroy you because he can gain more by exploiting you.
When power is unequal such that one party can employ far more devastating retaliation than the other can, the stronger party should continue to escalate gradually and the weaker party should capitulate to avoid destruction if capitulation will avoid destruction (it will if the other is a reasonable actor.)
Thus, the proper sequence is
You:Cooperate
Other: Betray
You: Retaliate
Other: Retaliate
You: Forgive
Other:Reject
You:Destroy
So long as the other continues to cooperate, everything is fine. If the other is cowed by the initial retaliation and becomes cooperative, everything is fine. If the other accepts the forgiveness and cooperates, everything is fine. The issue only comes up if the other chooses to reject attempts at reconciliation.
This, of course, assumes a situation in which each party can destroy the other but the other party chooses not to destroy you because he can gain more by exploiting you.
When power is unequal such that one party can employ far more devastating retaliation than the other can, the stronger party should continue to escalate gradually and the weaker party should capitulate to avoid destruction if capitulation will avoid destruction (it will if the other is a reasonable actor.)
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| the other party chooses not to destroy you because he can gain more by exploiting you. |
Or she
(Reminds me, I owe Mr. Trollman a clarification of the Prisoner's Dilemma over in another thread. I should get to that soon.)
~J
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||||
While poorly worded, it is quite accurate. While the tit for tat strategy, cooperation enforced by mutual retaliation, is optimal in most cases and forgiveness becomes optimal in cases of retaliation spiral, in which retaliation continues to escalate despite the best intentions of all parties, when faced with someone who acts in a consistently selfish manner despite offers to cooperate the only choice is to endure the abuse at its current levels or initiate an unending retaliation spiral unless one can simply remove the other from play altogether. Assuming that one can do so without inviting even greater retaliation, deadly violence is the best way to deal with an unrepentant enemy. |
I'd hardly say what I said was iddiotic, nor factually incorrect. History proves otherwise. Though what I said may well be as hyzmarca said, poorly written as to what I mean.
Violence isnt allways the -best- solution. But there are times when it'll settle matters, faster and potentially with actually -less- bloodshed than negociation. Wars tend to break out over a failure in negociation. Assuming there even was any negociation. Voilence, ultimately is one of the few things that has consistantly ended a war.
Negociation has on occasion yes. But FAR more often. Violence starts it, and violence ends it. Negociation does nothing but drag it out. I mean just look at WW2, which is a galring example.
Nazi Germany invades Poland. Europe effecitvely 'diplomatically chastises' Germany. Germany claims it was only 'defending' itself, and even rigged up events to try to make it look that way.
Hitler wanted, ultimately. More power, and more territory. People were not about to just give it to him, not matter how much he tried to negociate. So he took, really the only viable course availble to him. Violence.
Dont want to give me your land? Fine I'll take it from you by force.
Thats exactly what he did. Other nations of course finally opened their eyes to the reality that he wasnt about to stop and WW2 was officially declared really... a good deal later than it should have because of attempts at diplomacy. Hitler, while actually intelligent, was also in my oppinion quite mad. And you really cant negociate with a guy like that. Especially when he had a proven track record of 'negociating' and then simply turning around and attacking you again anyway.
Violence isnt pretty, it isnt nice. But no matter -what- you think of it. It has and will continue to solve problems for people. If it didnt people wouldnt use it so damn much. Because really thats what war is all about. Taking from others, and doing to others what they will not ever willingly give up or subject themselves to. Their reasons for such, right (most of the time) or wrong, hardly matters at all. What matters is what you want, and the lengths your willing to go to, to get what you want.
Honestly, the only iddiotic belife, is one that violence has never solved anything. There's far too much proof even in this day and age to the contrary. I never said it didnt have reprocussions. But then any action allways has some sort of reprocussion. Good or bad. Negociation simply accepts that you cant allways get what you want. The method of Violence is generally taken by those who will not take no for an answer and to hell with the concequences. And often enough? There unfortunately arnt any direct negative concequences of a violent action. There is more often further down the road, but often not for years. Some times there isnt ever any concequences.
Not good enough for you? Look at all the unsolved murders around the world. Thats all instances where some one took something by violent means. And got away with it. Many of those cases scott free with no reprocusions. That, I'm sorry to say trumps your claims of such things being 'iddiotic' or 'factually incorrect'.
| QUOTE |
| Hitler, while actually intelligent, was also in my oppinion quite mad. |
A steady treatment of cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamine will do that to you. Hitler had poor judgement in medical advice.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
A steady treatment of cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamine will do that to you. Hitler had poor judgement in medical advice. ~J |
I think it was more than just what meds he was on. They may have unhinged him more than he allready was. But he wasnt exactly 'stable' to begin with. Though.. this is actually the first I've ever heard of him using cocaine and such.
Whats your source on that btw? Anything on the net?
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Wikipedia PubMed That should be a starting point. ~J |
Ahhh.. trust a crazy man to hire a nutter for his doctor.
Sounds really just more of the same old Hitler. Just him making stuff worse for himself in the end is all. I still cant ever seem to understand what the hell really motivated that guy. It's all so peculiar.
Combine it with the fact that he was intelligent enough and charismatic enough to work himself into the position he did and hold onto it for so long? Course I'm not realy sure I ever want to 'properly understand' some one like him in the first place. He's certainly surrounded with enough... oddities as it is.
I'm certainly not going to argue that he was mentally healthy, but I'm not sure we really have evidence for him being, in the '30s (before that vitamin-and-stimulant regimen I mentioned above), much crazier than the average person.
Either way, I suggest you try to dispel your fear of understanding. There are some horrifying realizations in the process of understanding the behaviour of others, especially if one is a strong believer in highly free will, but in general it's unlikely to do anything but make the world a little better if more people are willing to examine why people do what they do, and not dismiss it as being simply "the sort of person they were".
I'm still half-asleep, so that may not have been coherent.
~J
Either way, I suggest you try to dispel your fear of understanding. There are some horrifying realizations in the process of understanding the behaviour of others, especially if one is a strong believer in highly free will, but in general it's unlikely to do anything but make the world a little better if more people are willing to examine why people do what they do, and not dismiss it as being simply "the sort of person they were".
I'm still half-asleep, so that may not have been coherent.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| (Civil war not about slavery, so on and soforth.) ~J |
Perhaps you should take the issue up with the writers of the Confederate Constitution.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
Referring to Bill Anderson as a gang leader is like referring to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. It is true in the broadest sense, but terribly inaccurate. Both were resistance leaders and are best considered to be such. |
It's just one of them shot and scalped unarmed civilians and prisoners and the other didn't.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad. |
Which doesn't mean the other 15 posters think that playing Bloody Bill is automatically mature or inherently good.
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| If you murder a bunch of sec guards in a secure facility. But there's no recordings and no real evidence to catch you. And we'll assume for now that theres say.. sound proofing so the gunshots arnt heard and such. It's hardly immature to kill them all. Afterall a living guard can point you out down the road. A dead man tells no tales however. |
Most secure facilities are familiar with the concept of cameras.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| The guy had a vendetta against a particular group, Unionists. Fair enough. If I had a character who said orks killed his parents and now he is extremely, extremely biased against orks, I'd say that's quite fine. He can shoot orks execution style and eat their babies on the basis that orks hurt him. As long as he has a character BEYOND that particular flaw, he'd still be roleplaying. |
Nicely put.
Though obviously this character won't work in a lot of games
| QUOTE (Ed Simons) |
| Most secure facilities are familiar with the concept of cameras. |
As are most Shadowrunners. If you're identifiably on camera you're fucked anyway, you might as well off the guards to save yourself some immediate trouble.
~J
| QUOTE (Kesslan @ Jan 16 2007, 11:44 PM) |
| I'd hardly say what I said was iddiotic, nor factually incorrect. History proves otherwise. Though what I said may well be as hyzmarca said, poorly written as to what I mean. |
Personal knowledge of instances such as your dumbass example proves otherwise. So, yeah... That was by far the most stupid goddamn thing I've ever read on DS. It's the same reason as I disagree with Kage, and also why I will never work under those circumstances again. I hate people enough as it is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.